stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,633
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 14, 2020 22:25:40 GMT
😂😂😂 Indeed. All that EU "Red Tape" being torn up. Ummmmmm Great isn't it, we'll be free from protectionist rackets such as the motor vehicle SVA scheme which makes it highly problematic to move used vehicles of less than 10 years of age from a non-EU member state and register them for road use within the EU, yet a blind eye is turned to the elements of EU vehicles moved between member states which don't meet UK construction and use regulations when registering them for road use. Prove me wrong on this if you can. So there's one huge piece of 'red tape' gone. As Anne Widdecombe said, ''We're off, and we're glad to be going''. Will the SVA really be done away with? As I understand it, a provisional test will be introduced and things will stay aligned for the time being. It will be dependant on any trade deal we agree, it could diverge in time if we don't. In terms of a "protection racket", not sure there are many countries or free trade zones that don't have some form of domestic market protection, whether it is tariffs, quotas or manufacturing standards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 8:39:02 GMT
Great isn't it, we'll be free from protectionist rackets such as the motor vehicle SVA scheme which makes it highly problematic to move used vehicles of less than 10 years of age from a non-EU member state and register them for road use within the EU, yet a blind eye is turned to the elements of EU vehicles moved between member states which don't meet UK construction and use regulations when registering them for road use. Prove me wrong on this if you can. So there's one huge piece of 'red tape' gone. As Anne Widdecombe said, ''We're off, and we're glad to be going''. Will the SVA really be done away with? As I understand it, a provisional test will be introduced and things will stay aligned for the time being. It will be dependant on any trade deal we agree, it could diverge in time if we don't. In terms of a "protection racket", not sure there are many countries or free trade zones that don't have some form of domestic market protection, whether it is tariffs, quotas or manufacturing standards. I don't know what the plans are for the scheme over time, but it creates an uneven playing field. What would a 'provisional' test look like? No import duty into Japan for used motor vehicles from the EU. So there's one country with the right idea, they are saying to business, go ahead, do your thing, make plenty of money, create jobs, and pay a bit of tax on your profit. That's the right way around, rather than penalising creativity and creating cash flow issues for start-ups and small businesses.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,633
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 15, 2020 8:51:10 GMT
Will the SVA really be done away with? As I understand it, a provisional test will be introduced and things will stay aligned for the time being. It will be dependant on any trade deal we agree, it could diverge in time if we don't. In terms of a "protection racket", not sure there are many countries or free trade zones that don't have some form of domestic market protection, whether it is tariffs, quotas or manufacturing standards. I don't know what the plans are for the scheme over time, but it creates an uneven playing field. What would a 'provisional' test look like? No import duty into Japan for used motor vehicles from the EU. So there's one country with the right idea, they are saying to business, go ahead, do your thing, make plenty of money, create jobs, and pay a bit of tax on your profit. That's the right way around, rather than penalising creativity and creating cash flow issues for start-ups and small businesses. The challenge you set was to prove you wrong about being free from SVA. We aren't 'free' and we don't know what form it will take going forward. Maybe it will change, maybe it won't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 8:52:53 GMT
I don't know what the plans are for the scheme over time, but it creates an uneven playing field. What would a 'provisional' test look like? No import duty into Japan for used motor vehicles from the EU. So there's one country with the right idea, they are saying to business, go ahead, do your thing, make plenty of money, create jobs, and pay a bit of tax on your profit. That's the right way around, rather than penalising creativity and creating cash flow issues for start-ups and small businesses. The challenge you set was to prove you wrong about being free from SVA. We aren't 'free' and we don't know what form it will take going forward. Maybe it will change, maybe it won't. Now now Stuart 😂😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 8:57:18 GMT
The challenge you set was to prove you wrong about being free from SVA. We aren't 'free' and we don't know what form it will take going forward. Maybe it will change, maybe it won't. Now now Stuart 😂😂 We'll come back to Stuart's point in a moment, but as you are here, you have several outstanding things that you were arguing, incorrectly, yesterday. Care to address them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 9:06:45 GMT
I don't know what the plans are for the scheme over time, but it creates an uneven playing field. What would a 'provisional' test look like? No import duty into Japan for used motor vehicles from the EU. So there's one country with the right idea, they are saying to business, go ahead, do your thing, make plenty of money, create jobs, and pay a bit of tax on your profit. That's the right way around, rather than penalising creativity and creating cash flow issues for start-ups and small businesses. The challenge you set was to prove you wrong about being free from SVA. We aren't 'free' and we don't know what form it will take going forward. Maybe it will change, maybe it won't. You have half a point here. I don't know what will happen with vehicles moved from other EU member states, but see below what I actually said, I was referencing vehicles moved from outside of the EU into the UK, I've had dialogue with MPs involved in this, the intention is to attempt to agree a free trade deal with Japan and to scrap any version of the SVA test for vehicles originating from there. Maybe this was poorly worded. So, Oldie, quick to jump in, now you are here, let's finish yesterday's business.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,633
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 15, 2020 9:16:54 GMT
The challenge you set was to prove you wrong about being free from SVA. We aren't 'free' and we don't know what form it will take going forward. Maybe it will change, maybe it won't. You have half a point here. I don't know what will happen with vehicles moved from other EU member states, but see below what I actually said, I was referencing vehicles moved from outside of the EU into the UK, I've had dialogue with MPs involved in this, the intention is to attempt to agree a free trade deal with Japan and to scrap any version of the SVA test for vehicles originating from there. Maybe this was poorly worded. So, Oldie, quick to jump in, now you are here, let's finish yesterday's business. We'll scrap it under FTAs but not unilaterally? Doesn't that make the UK a protectionist racket too if we'd only do that under the quid pro quo of an FTA? Incidentally, which EU legislation brought in the SVA?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 9:28:01 GMT
You have half a point here. I don't know what will happen with vehicles moved from other EU member states, but see below what I actually said, I was referencing vehicles moved from outside of the EU into the UK, I've had dialogue with MPs involved in this, the intention is to attempt to agree a free trade deal with Japan and to scrap any version of the SVA test for vehicles originating from there. Maybe this was poorly worded. So, Oldie, quick to jump in, now you are here, let's finish yesterday's business. We'll scrap it under FTAs but not unilaterally? Doesn't that make the UK a protectionist racket too if we'd only do that under the quid pro quo of an FTA? Incidentally, which EU legislation brought in the SVA? I don't know what will happen with EU negotiations, all I've asked about is what we are looking at in relation to vehicles from outside of the EU, as that's all that directly affects my business activities. That's the where the 'we' (myself and people I know who import from outside of the EU) came from. Not written clearly, sorry about that. I may still have the original consultation documentation etc, that may give details of the legislation, the utterly ridiculous excuse given at the time was that the scheme was to ensure 'singularity of standards' across all EU member states. As an example of why this is silly, there are certain aspects of EU vehicles which will fail the test, yet a new vehicle with a CoC from another EU member state does not require testing. = protectionist racket.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,633
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 15, 2020 9:49:42 GMT
We'll scrap it under FTAs but not unilaterally? Doesn't that make the UK a protectionist racket too if we'd only do that under the quid pro quo of an FTA? Incidentally, which EU legislation brought in the SVA? I don't know what will happen with EU negotiations, all I've asked about is what we are looking at in relation to vehicles from outside of the EU, as that's all that directly affects my business activities. That's the where the 'we' (myself and people I know who import from outside of the EU) came from. Not written clearly, sorry about that. I may still have the original consultation documentation etc, that may give details of the legislation, the utterly ridiculous excuse given at the time was that the scheme was to ensure 'singularity of standards' across all EU member states. As an example of why this is silly, there are certain aspects of EU vehicles which will fail the test, yet a new vehicle with a CoC from another EU member state does not require testing. = protectionist racket. From what little I have read, the SVA was brought into being in the 1990s and later updated. The EC directive in 2007 (EC 2007/46?) was covering whole fleet testing while we decided to tag onto the legislation changes to SVA. Is it (SVA) a UK only thing? Seems from what I could see it is which would perhaps partly explain the contradictions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 10:29:24 GMT
I don't know what will happen with EU negotiations, all I've asked about is what we are looking at in relation to vehicles from outside of the EU, as that's all that directly affects my business activities. That's the where the 'we' (myself and people I know who import from outside of the EU) came from. Not written clearly, sorry about that. I may still have the original consultation documentation etc, that may give details of the legislation, the utterly ridiculous excuse given at the time was that the scheme was to ensure 'singularity of standards' across all EU member states. As an example of why this is silly, there are certain aspects of EU vehicles which will fail the test, yet a new vehicle with a CoC from another EU member state does not require testing. = protectionist racket. From what little I have read, the SVA was brought into being in the 1990s and later updated. The EC directive in 2007 (EC 2007/46?) was covering whole fleet testing while we decided to tag onto the legislation changes to SVA. Is it (SVA) a UK only thing? Seems from what I could see it is which would perhaps partly explain the contradictions. From the wording, 'To ensure singularity of standards across member states' I assumed that there was something similar in other EU countries, but you know what they say about 'Assume'. We tried, as a group, to go over the problems with detail and implementation of the scheme with MPs and with VOSA, but it felt very much as if the decision had been made and the consultation process was just lip service. The exact detail of the scheme isn't hugely important, the end result is that there wasn't anything in it that we could see that improved safety or environmental standards, as an example, the exhaust decibel testing was farcical, originally tests were carried out in an industrial unit in Avonmouth, resonance within that unit meant that noise testing had to be done outside, but proximity to road traffic meant that we needed to wait for a gap in passing vehicles to get the noise reading. All highly scientific, reliable and satisfactory. Don't misunderstand, I'm not blaming the testers, they are just people doing a job, but the facilities were a complete joke. Are there areas in which vehicle safety could be improved? Yep, if someone from VOSA takes me out for a nice lunch I'll point them in the right direction, there's plenty they can be doing, but in relation to the vehicles I've handled, that scheme didn't do a great deal to help, in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 10:39:22 GMT
From what little I have read, the SVA was brought into being in the 1990s and later updated. The EC directive in 2007 (EC 2007/46?) was covering whole fleet testing while we decided to tag onto the legislation changes to SVA. Is it (SVA) a UK only thing? Seems from what I could see it is which would perhaps partly explain the contradictions. From the wording, 'To ensure singularity of standards across member states' I assumed that there was something similar in other EU countries, but you know what they say about 'Assume'. We tried, as a group, to go over the problems with detail and implementation of the scheme with MPs and with VOSA, but it felt very much as if the decision had been made and the consultation process was just lip service. The exact detail of the scheme isn't hugely important, the end result is that there wasn't anything in it that we could see that improved safety or environmental standards, as an example, the exhaust decibel testing was farcical, originally tests were carried out in an industrial unit in Avonmouth, resonance within that unit meant that noise testing had to be done outside, but proximity to road traffic meant that we needed to wait for a gap in passing vehicles to get the noise reading. All highly scientific, reliable and satisfactory. Don't misunderstand, I'm not blaming the testers, they are just people doing a job, but the facilities were a complete joke. Are there areas in which vehicle safety could be improved? Yep, if someone from VOSA takes me out for a nice lunch I'll point them in the right direction, there's plenty they can be doing, but in relation to the vehicles I've handled, that scheme didn't do a great deal to help, in my opinion. You may have points about the veracity of the testing regime, or even it's effectiveness in delivering a prescribed outcome. But, is it a protection racket? Are you saying tear up all legislation and allow a completely unchecked, unfettered, importation of used vehicles and non standard new manufactured product? If so why would we need this area to be covered by an FTA?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 11:24:19 GMT
From the wording, 'To ensure singularity of standards across member states' I assumed that there was something similar in other EU countries, but you know what they say about 'Assume'. We tried, as a group, to go over the problems with detail and implementation of the scheme with MPs and with VOSA, but it felt very much as if the decision had been made and the consultation process was just lip service. The exact detail of the scheme isn't hugely important, the end result is that there wasn't anything in it that we could see that improved safety or environmental standards, as an example, the exhaust decibel testing was farcical, originally tests were carried out in an industrial unit in Avonmouth, resonance within that unit meant that noise testing had to be done outside, but proximity to road traffic meant that we needed to wait for a gap in passing vehicles to get the noise reading. All highly scientific, reliable and satisfactory. Don't misunderstand, I'm not blaming the testers, they are just people doing a job, but the facilities were a complete joke. Are there areas in which vehicle safety could be improved? Yep, if someone from VOSA takes me out for a nice lunch I'll point them in the right direction, there's plenty they can be doing, but in relation to the vehicles I've handled, that scheme didn't do a great deal to help, in my opinion. You may have points about the veracity of the testing regime, or even it's effectiveness in delivering a prescribed outcome. But, is it a protection racket? Are you saying tear up all legislation and allow a completely unchecked, unfettered, importation of used vehicles and non standard new manufactured product? If so why would we need this area to be covered by an FTA? Thanks for the measured reply with decent questions. This is how debate should be, so thanks for this. If I mis-step with a word or two in a reply, please ask for clarification, don't jump down my throat, then we can move forward, having a civilised exchange. I've not mentioned non-standard or bespoke vehicles, and this is an area where standards could, and probably should be improved over and above those set by the scheme we are discussing. What I'm talking about is, as an example, a vehicle which falls in to a production run covered by a CoC but an independent importer wouldn't have access to the CoC but could produce evidence of production standards which demonstrate that the vehicle, as designed, will meet construction and use regulations. Now, you may argue that the vehicle needs checking to ensure that it's still in original condition, I'll counter that by saying that the manufacturer just produces a set of specifications, those are accepted and they then declare that the vehicle is produced in accordance with those details. We know that's not always the case, this is demonstrated by recent emissions scandals, I think that Mercedes are the latest being taken to task for this. So isn't there a strong case for demanding that even officially imported vehicles are tested in every aspect? If the emissions data is 'manipulated' who knows what else is inaccurate. But you and I know that's not happening. This is what drives us small 'independents' crazy with frustration, the uneven playing field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 11:32:47 GMT
You may have points about the veracity of the testing regime, or even it's effectiveness in delivering a prescribed outcome. But, is it a protection racket? Are you saying tear up all legislation and allow a completely unchecked, unfettered, importation of used vehicles and non standard new manufactured product? If so why would we need this area to be covered by an FTA? Thanks for the measured reply with decent questions. This is how debate should be, so thanks for this. If I mis-step with a word or two in a reply, please ask for clarification, don't jump down my throat, then we can move forward, having a civilised exchange. I've not mentioned non-standard or bespoke vehicles, and this is an area where standards could, and probably should be improved over and above those set by the scheme we are discussing. What I'm talking about is, as an example, a vehicle which falls in to a production run covered by a CoC but an independent importer wouldn't have access to the CoC but could produce evidence of production standards which demonstrate that the vehicle, as designed, will meet construction and use regulations. Now, you may argue that the vehicle needs checking to ensure that it's still in original condition, I'll counter that by saying that the manufacturer just produces a set of specifications, those are accepted and they then declare that the vehicle is produced in accordance with those details. We know that's not always the case, this is demonstrated by recent emissions scandals, I think that Mercedes are the latest being taken to task for this. So isn't there a strong case for demanding that even officially imported vehicles are tested in every aspect? If the emissions data is 'manipulated' who knows what else is inaccurate. But you and I know that's not happening. This is what drives us small 'independents' crazy with frustration, the uneven playing field. I wouldn't argue with much of that. But, the emissions scandal was in fact "fraud" perpetrated to circumvent existing testing standards. What I am really interested is a view that we shouldn't test on importation and pre resale for used vehicles. If indeed that is what you are arguing for?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 11:47:14 GMT
Thanks for the measured reply with decent questions. This is how debate should be, so thanks for this. If I mis-step with a word or two in a reply, please ask for clarification, don't jump down my throat, then we can move forward, having a civilised exchange. I've not mentioned non-standard or bespoke vehicles, and this is an area where standards could, and probably should be improved over and above those set by the scheme we are discussing. What I'm talking about is, as an example, a vehicle which falls in to a production run covered by a CoC but an independent importer wouldn't have access to the CoC but could produce evidence of production standards which demonstrate that the vehicle, as designed, will meet construction and use regulations. Now, you may argue that the vehicle needs checking to ensure that it's still in original condition, I'll counter that by saying that the manufacturer just produces a set of specifications, those are accepted and they then declare that the vehicle is produced in accordance with those details. We know that's not always the case, this is demonstrated by recent emissions scandals, I think that Mercedes are the latest being taken to task for this. So isn't there a strong case for demanding that even officially imported vehicles are tested in every aspect? If the emissions data is 'manipulated' who knows what else is inaccurate. But you and I know that's not happening. This is what drives us small 'independents' crazy with frustration, the uneven playing field. I wouldn't argue with much of that. But, the emissions scandal was in fact "fraud" perpetrated to circumvent existing testing standards. What I am really interested is a view that we shouldn't test on importation and pre resale for used vehicles. If indeed that is what you are arguing for? Who knows what other bits and pieces could have been slipped through, I don't know, maybe tyre specs which exceed by some margin the legal speed but don't match the potential top speed of a vehicle, hard to complain as a retail customer that your road tyre is only rated to 140 mph, yet my independently imported vehicle will fail the test with that tyre fitted if the vehicle has a claimed top speed of 170 mph. Just an example, pulled out of thin air. But the big thing, and what proves, for me, that the scheme was designed just to scupper independent importers, was that it only applies to vehicles up to 10 years of age. So they are saying, in effect, go ahead and import old stuff that doesn't compete with our manufacturers, just get an MOT on it and DVLA will send you a registration number, no SVA or any variation of that test required, but as soon as you try to step on the toes of bigger businesses we'll put a stop to that. Difficult for VOSA to argue from there that one of their primary concerns is improving safety, as those older units are less likely to be standard and are more likely to have age related wear and tear. Of course, for me as a retailer, those units are potentially problematic as preparing them to a high standard for retail sale, so that when the phone rings your first thought isn't that it may be a customer with an issue with a vehicle, can be time consuming and costly. Protectionist racket.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 14:02:03 GMT
I wouldn't argue with much of that. But, the emissions scandal was in fact "fraud" perpetrated to circumvent existing testing standards. What I am really interested is a view that we shouldn't test on importation and pre resale for used vehicles. If indeed that is what you are arguing for? Who knows what other bits and pieces could have been slipped through, I don't know, maybe tyre specs which exceed by some margin the legal speed but don't match the potential top speed of a vehicle, hard to complain as a retail customer that your road tyre is only rated to 140 mph, yet my independently imported vehicle will fail the test with that tyre fitted if the vehicle has a claimed top speed of 170 mph. Just an example, pulled out of thin air. But the big thing, and what proves, for me, that the scheme was designed just to scupper independent importers, was that it only applies to vehicles up to 10 years of age. So they are saying, in effect, go ahead and import old stuff that doesn't compete with our manufacturers, just get an MOT on it and DVLA will send you a registration number, no SVA or any variation of that test required, but as soon as you try to step on the toes of bigger businesses we'll put a stop to that. Difficult for VOSA to argue from there that one of their primary concerns is improving safety, as those older units are less likely to be standard and are more likely to have age related wear and tear. Of course, for me as a retailer, those units are potentially problematic as preparing them to a high standard for retail sale, so that when the phone rings your first thought isn't that it may be a customer with an issue with a vehicle, can be time consuming and costly. Protectionist racket. Ok. I honestly had no idea what business you run. Firstly, whatever legislation and processes are put in place, fraud is always possible to one degree or another. Whatever the line of business. Taking your example of putting incorrect tyres on a new vehicle, I struggle to believe that a major manufacturer would risk the damage to brand reputation by doing something so stupid for the sake of a couple of quid per vehicle. So reading between the lines (because you have not explicitly said it) you have access to newly manufactured product, manufactured outside of the UK and EU, that you are not able to import on the same terms as EU manufactured product? Is that it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 14:16:17 GMT
Who knows what other bits and pieces could have been slipped through, I don't know, maybe tyre specs which exceed by some margin the legal speed but don't match the potential top speed of a vehicle, hard to complain as a retail customer that your road tyre is only rated to 140 mph, yet my independently imported vehicle will fail the test with that tyre fitted if the vehicle has a claimed top speed of 170 mph. Just an example, pulled out of thin air. But the big thing, and what proves, for me, that the scheme was designed just to scupper independent importers, was that it only applies to vehicles up to 10 years of age. So they are saying, in effect, go ahead and import old stuff that doesn't compete with our manufacturers, just get an MOT on it and DVLA will send you a registration number, no SVA or any variation of that test required, but as soon as you try to step on the toes of bigger businesses we'll put a stop to that. Difficult for VOSA to argue from there that one of their primary concerns is improving safety, as those older units are less likely to be standard and are more likely to have age related wear and tear. Of course, for me as a retailer, those units are potentially problematic as preparing them to a high standard for retail sale, so that when the phone rings your first thought isn't that it may be a customer with an issue with a vehicle, can be time consuming and costly. Protectionist racket. Ok. I honestly had no idea what business you run. Firstly, whatever legislation and processes are put in place, fraud is always possible to one degree or another. Whatever the line of business. Taking your example of putting incorrect tyres on a new vehicle, I struggle to believe that a major manufacturer would risk the damage to brand reputation by doing something so stupid for the sake of a couple of quid per vehicle. So reading between the lines (because you have not explicitly said it) you have access to newly manufactured product, manufactured outside of the UK and EU, that you are not able to import on the same terms as EU manufactured product? Is that it? No, that's not it. I can import on the same basis as far as I'm aware. It's post import that the problems start. Yes, I can purchase identical new product in Japan, import independently, demonstrate via factory production records that the vehicle was manufactured for this (UK) market, yet still that vehicle would need testing. Would you like to spend a day going around car and motorcycle showrooms, we'll find something, somewhere that doesn't meet test standards, even if it's just the rounded edge of a plastic trim not having a 2.5mm radius due to wear on the production machinery. No issue to the main agent as they have a CoC for the vehicle, so it's presumed correct, yet each of my vehicles need to be tested individually. You can see the huge contradiction I'm sure, as soon as the vehicle is 10 years old, so a totally different customer profile, no test required. A new vehicle with headlights that dip the wrong way and a KMH (as the primary speed indication) speedo can be registered here using an EU CoC. Yet that vehicle would fail the test. Come on! Welcome to the EU. Corrupt to its very core. Increasing costs and lowering choice for you and me as retail customers. I do other stuff, not just bringing vehicles here. But if you ever fancy a Bongo Wagon, give me a call.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 14:31:32 GMT
Ok. I honestly had no idea what business you run. Firstly, whatever legislation and processes are put in place, fraud is always possible to one degree or another. Whatever the line of business. Taking your example of putting incorrect tyres on a new vehicle, I struggle to believe that a major manufacturer would risk the damage to brand reputation by doing something so stupid for the sake of a couple of quid per vehicle. So reading between the lines (because you have not explicitly said it) you have access to newly manufactured product, manufactured outside of the UK and EU, that you are not able to import on the same terms as EU manufactured product? Is that it? No, that's not it. I can import on the same basis as far as I'm aware. It's post import that the problems start. Yes, I can purchase identical new product in Japan, import independently, demonstrate via factory production records that the vehicle was manufactured for this (UK) market, yet still that vehicle would need testing. Would you like to spend a day going around car and motorcycle showrooms, we'll find something, somewhere that doesn't meet test standards, even if it's just the rounded edge of a plastic trim not having a 2.5mm radius due to wear on the production machinery. No issue to the main agent as they have a CoC for the vehicle, so it's presumed correct, yet each of my vehicles need to be tested individually. You can see the huge contradiction I'm sure, as soon as the vehicle is 10 years old, so a totally different customer profile, no test required. A new vehicle with headlights that dip the wrong way and a KMH (as the primary speed indication) speedo can be registered here using an EU CoC. Yet that vehicle would fail the test. Come on! Welcome to the EU. Corrupt to its very core. Increasing costs and lowering choice for you and me as retail customers. I do other stuff, not just bringing vehicles here. But if you ever fancy a Bongo Wagon, give me a call. 😂 Not sure what a "Bongo Wagon" is, to be fair. Just to get my head around this. So you can import a vehicle from Japan at the same landed cost as the main manufacturer approved major dealer network? I am not saying that cannot be true but I struggle with the franchise arrangements if it is true. Let's say it is true. Is there any constraint imposed by the manufacturer on final retail price? Again I struggle with the idea that they would allow their franchised retail networks to be undercut. Is any of that right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2020 15:06:58 GMT
No, that's not it. I can import on the same basis as far as I'm aware. It's post import that the problems start. Yes, I can purchase identical new product in Japan, import independently, demonstrate via factory production records that the vehicle was manufactured for this (UK) market, yet still that vehicle would need testing. Would you like to spend a day going around car and motorcycle showrooms, we'll find something, somewhere that doesn't meet test standards, even if it's just the rounded edge of a plastic trim not having a 2.5mm radius due to wear on the production machinery. No issue to the main agent as they have a CoC for the vehicle, so it's presumed correct, yet each of my vehicles need to be tested individually. You can see the huge contradiction I'm sure, as soon as the vehicle is 10 years old, so a totally different customer profile, no test required. A new vehicle with headlights that dip the wrong way and a KMH (as the primary speed indication) speedo can be registered here using an EU CoC. Yet that vehicle would fail the test. Come on! Welcome to the EU. Corrupt to its very core. Increasing costs and lowering choice for you and me as retail customers. I do other stuff, not just bringing vehicles here. But if you ever fancy a Bongo Wagon, give me a call. 😂 Not sure what a "Bongo Wagon" is, to be fair. Just to get my head around this. So you can import a vehicle from Japan at the same landed cost as the main manufacturer approved major dealer network? I am not saying that cannot be true but I struggle with the franchise arrangements if it is true. Let's say it is true. Is there any constraint imposed by the manufacturer on final retail price? Again I struggle with the idea that they would allow their franchised retail networks to be undercut. Is any of that right? It's all exchange rate driven, but I wouldn't be a franchised dealer, not in a million years. Here's a specific example, I was going to my supplier in Tokyo and buying brand new vehicles, bringing them back here, landed, all in, inc import duty, inc VAT, inc freight, they owed me £4800, I was retailing those at £6500. To get this deal I had to commit to buying 50 units. But that was OK, 50 of them retailed in around 6 weeks. That same unit, identical, was on the main agent's floor for £9995.00. His margin was approx 15% gross, but out of that he has a heck of a lot of costs to service, things like specific showroom presentation, specific staff apparel, specific fixtures and fittings in the workshop, maybe contributions to national advertising campaigns, it goes on and on, then he now has a big problem, because a % of his customers are stood in front of his sales team asking an awkward question, 'Why should I pay you £10,000 when the exact same thing is in that other place for £6500?' I once walked in to a franchised dealer, to buy a spare part, the owner came out of his office, walked straight up to me, told me I had f**ked his business and was banned from his premises. I laughed all the way home. You would need to ask each franchised dealer as probably each marque would have different terms, but some dealers have been, historically, to my knowledge, told that they can not retail below a certain price. I can expand on that if you like as it's not as black & white as it may seem. To your last point, it doesn't seem that the Japanese factories were particularly worried, there was never an issue with me buying those units, I never had a sniff of them being interested in what I was doing with them, it's an export based economy. Bongo Wagon. Who are you to resist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 12:55:20 GMT
😂 Not sure what a "Bongo Wagon" is, to be fair. Just to get my head around this. So you can import a vehicle from Japan at the same landed cost as the main manufacturer approved major dealer network? I am not saying that cannot be true but I struggle with the franchise arrangements if it is true. Let's say it is true. Is there any constraint imposed by the manufacturer on final retail price? Again I struggle with the idea that they would allow their franchised retail networks to be undercut. Is any of that right? It's all exchange rate driven, but I wouldn't be a franchised dealer, not in a million years. Here's a specific example, I was going to my supplier in Tokyo and buying brand new vehicles, bringing them back here, landed, all in, inc import duty, inc VAT, inc freight, they owed me £4800, I was retailing those at £6500. To get this deal I had to commit to buying 50 units. But that was OK, 50 of them retailed in around 6 weeks. That same unit, identical, was on the main agent's floor for £9995.00. His margin was approx 15% gross, but out of that he has a heck of a lot of costs to service, things like specific showroom presentation, specific staff apparel, specific fixtures and fittings in the workshop, maybe contributions to national advertising campaigns, it goes on and on, then he now has a big problem, because a % of his customers are stood in front of his sales team asking an awkward question, 'Why should I pay you £10,000 when the exact same thing is in that other place for £6500?' I once walked in to a franchised dealer, to buy a spare part, the owner came out of his office, walked straight up to me, told me I had f**ked his business and was banned from his premises. I laughed all the way home. You would need to ask each franchised dealer as probably each marque would have different terms, but some dealers have been, historically, to my knowledge, told that they can not retail below a certain price. I can expand on that if you like as it's not as black & white as it may seem. To your last point, it doesn't seem that the Japanese factories were particularly worried, there was never an issue with me buying those units, I never had a sniff of them being interested in what I was doing with them, it's an export based economy. Bongo Wagon. Who are you to resist? I thought about your comments on this and how it relates to the Leavers mindset over Brexit. An important part of the equation you are, I believe, missing from your costs is brand recognition and advertising. You remarked on it but appeared pleased not to have to take part. But without the manufacturer and country dealership advertising and brand promotion how would you get your vehicle's into the public domain? Your analysis suggests you are piggy backing onto someone else's cost base. If it was ABC Cars from Japan I bet you would find it harder to shift 50 vehicles in a reasonable time frame without brand recognition. What about warranty? You have to stand by your sales, is that being done in house? By approved manufacturers staff? I can see why you want to do it that way, but you don't like paying the £IVA/SVA cost, you don't want to contribute to brand advertising and you appear quite happy for someone else to pay for it. Whilst I agree in any arrangement there always "layers" that can be stripped down, there is never a free ride. Which is what if course the Leave campaign was all about. Trying to get the same thing for free. Four years down the line it's not looking promising but the next few months will tell all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 13:52:44 GMT
It's all exchange rate driven, but I wouldn't be a franchised dealer, not in a million years. Here's a specific example, I was going to my supplier in Tokyo and buying brand new vehicles, bringing them back here, landed, all in, inc import duty, inc VAT, inc freight, they owed me £4800, I was retailing those at £6500. To get this deal I had to commit to buying 50 units. But that was OK, 50 of them retailed in around 6 weeks. That same unit, identical, was on the main agent's floor for £9995.00. His margin was approx 15% gross, but out of that he has a heck of a lot of costs to service, things like specific showroom presentation, specific staff apparel, specific fixtures and fittings in the workshop, maybe contributions to national advertising campaigns, it goes on and on, then he now has a big problem, because a % of his customers are stood in front of his sales team asking an awkward question, 'Why should I pay you £10,000 when the exact same thing is in that other place for £6500?' I once walked in to a franchised dealer, to buy a spare part, the owner came out of his office, walked straight up to me, told me I had f**ked his business and was banned from his premises. I laughed all the way home. You would need to ask each franchised dealer as probably each marque would have different terms, but some dealers have been, historically, to my knowledge, told that they can not retail below a certain price. I can expand on that if you like as it's not as black & white as it may seem. To your last point, it doesn't seem that the Japanese factories were particularly worried, there was never an issue with me buying those units, I never had a sniff of them being interested in what I was doing with them, it's an export based economy. Bongo Wagon. Who are you to resist? I thought about your comments on this and how it relates to the Leavers mindset over Brexit. An important part of the equation you are, I believe, missing from your costs is brand recognition and advertising. You remarked on it but appeared pleased not to have to take part. But without the manufacturer and country dealership advertising and brand promotion how would you get your vehicle's into the public domain? Your analysis suggests you are piggy backing onto someone else's cost base. If it was ABC Cars from Japan I bet you would find it harder to shift 50 vehicles in a reasonable time frame without brand recognition. What about warranty? You have to stand by your sales, is that being done in house? By approved manufacturers staff? I can see why you want to do it that way, but you don't like paying the £IVA/SVA cost, you don't want to contribute to brand advertising and you appear quite happy for someone else to pay for it. Whilst I agree in any arrangement there always "layers" that can be stripped down, there is never a free ride. Which is what if course the Leave campaign was all about. Trying to get the same thing for free. Four years down the line it's not looking promising but the next few months will tell all. We are now miles off of the original point and are having an entirely different conversation, it's one that I'm happy to have though. Firstly, you haven't put forward any defence at all of that scheme, aimed, I think, at protecting a market. Is the purpose of the EU to protect privately owned business against competition? In fact, you seem to be coming round to saying that the manufacturer / importer / agent needs protecting. Is that really what you want? Just look at those numbers, £4800 all in ready to sell (and the factory in Japan were making money at that price, plus my piddling little quantity just won't have the economy of scale that the big boys enjoy in terms of transportation, warehousing etc), Vs £9995 retail. Someone somewhere was doing very nicely. You want to remove competition that forced the franchised agent to change £9995 to £7995? To the points you make today. Manufacturers and importers have protection in law, they have their brands, trade marks, logos etc secured, and please don't think I'm being deliberately awkward, but it may be useful for you to do some investigation around 'Trading off'. You can't just open a shop, fill it full of product and piggy back off of advertising, intellectual property etc owned by a manufacturer / appointed agent / importer and expect not to find solicitor's letters arriving PDG. And rightly so. In fact, I have a friend, who against my advice, used the logo of a manufacturer as part of his company brand, you know what happened next don't you. He tried to fight the case on the basis that the logo was well known and he didn't use the manufacturer name, the logo was affixed to the product in every case, so he was just advertising product. He lost, of course. After sales and warranty. Factory trained mechanics, are, in my opinion, often not well versed in actually 'repairing' component parts, what they do well is diagnose faults and then replace items. That's not a criticism in any way, shape or form of the individual, it's my understanding of the method they are trained in. My 'spanner men' were and still are experienced people who replace where required, but also understand how to repair. So I'm not, and never have, employed factory trained technicians. I'm not saying that I wouldn't, it's just that, so far, I never have, so I haven't benefited from any factory investment in that regard. Do you actually want details of the full warranties provided? What I would say is that my policy was, and is, treat people as you would like to be treated, regardless of what the actual text on the warranty documentation may say. And always remember, if a customer is happy, he may tell a couple of people, if he's unhappy he most likely will tell 10 people. Brand awareness. the product under discussion here is, in my opinion, as good as, if not better than anything produced anywhere else in the world. The quality of the product is what creates confidence to buy. Just look at the shambles UK vehicle manufacturing was in the 1970s, of course if you market something that works people will buy it, that's where your brand awareness comes from. The 'market' is created with confidence established with the quality of the product. Nothing to do with advertising, or showrooms with tiled floors. In fact, some people actively don't want to shop in that environment. I've been having this conversation with my customers for literally decades now. The 'Main Agent' experience is obviously perfect for some people, good, in that case the agent and their client are both happy, I'm glad for them both, but others are looking for something a bit different. I'm not going to be more specific than that on an open forum, but would be happy to give details via PM as long as we agreed that any message sent that way was sent and received in strict confidence. To be fair, this ought to be done with you with a beer in your hand and me with a nice soft drink, we could probably chuck it back and forth for a couple of hours.
|
|